Reform banging on about the “establishment” constantly

The point is it’s anti-establishment to want to dismantle the way existing institutions function. I didn’t at any point say I approve of Farage or what Reform would do. My point is simply that he is not establishment.

The problem is people use these phrases for people they just don’t like. Common understanding of what terms mean is important for people to communicate truthfully. My objection is not an effort to defend Farage. The shortcut here is people believe that being anti-establishment is a virtue so should only be associated with people they approve of.

I happen to think strong sensible institutions create stability and are important for countries to prosper and for civilians to be able to live well. I do think institutions can be misguided but I am absolutely not anti-establishment in the “tear it all down” way of thinking. Anyone who’s been in a country with poor institutional control or overly political institutions will know it’s actually quite shit.

It could be.

The point is the locus of power has moved. The person you describe above could certainly be said to be rich and powerful, but they (might) no longer be the establishment.

What would you call someone wealthy, who goes on fox hunts, has been prominent in politics for decades and has mates who can just chuck £5 million at him ‘no strings attached’.

It’s certainly not ‘of the people’ is it?

What would you call someone wealthy, who goes on fox hunts, has been prominent in politics for decades and has mates who can just chuck £5 million at him ‘no strings attached’.

It’s certainly not ‘of the people’ is it?

I think it’s a giant fucking grift tbh. If you are genuinely curious you aren’t fussed by the colour of the skin, the wealth etc. different experiences can bring to bear different ideas but fundamentally the merit of idea is what should be weighed. Nothing should be dismissed just because it’s a white/black/gay/male/female/rich/poor person saying it.

I think it’s a way to avoid actual discussion and having to think of an argument.

That is true. But it was also cynically exploited and overstated by the Right.

I was strongly supportive of the TERF position (to use a convenient shorthand) on trans ideology.

But it was used as a cover story to attack other progressive ideas and positions.

No, in the UK a lot of the pushback was from feminists having to go to court again and again. It didn’t spontaneously disappear, it had to be tried throughly through our judiciary to enable women to claw back rights that were being removed from them. It was grassroots challenging of our institutions that pushed back the rot. Theres a reason the UK is called TERF island.

And look how well that's working for America...

Apart from anything else why should someone who's a professional civil servant loose their job because their boss changes. As for the judiciary, it needs to be truly independent from the sort of political interference seen in America. That's what properly written and debated legislation is for.

I think it’s a giant fucking grift tbh. If you are genuinely curious you aren’t fussed by the colour of the skin, the wealth etc. different experiences can bring to bear different ideas but fundamentally the merit of idea is what should be weighed. Nothing should be dismissed just because it’s a white/black/gay/male/female/rich/poor person saying it.

I think it’s a way to avoid actual discussion and having to think of an argument.

But that's a very recent thing, and an anomaly. And is in retreat now anyway.

To the extent that there was "woke capture" of these institutions (and this was overstated), it's really fallen from favour. I work for a large US company with a UK subsidiary and we've basically been told that any reference to diversity in any public statement is completely off limits.

I think the "woke capture" was largely whipped up by people like Farage and his outriders at the Telegraph to scare people into taking anti-progressive positions. Whatever "woke" there was in our institutions is now being rapidly unwound.

Some of that is good (for example the recent Supreme Court ruling on gender identity). A lot of the pro trans stuff was at best ridiculous and at worst pernicious and I'm glad its being called out for the nonsense it is.

But a lot of the attacks on "woke" are a deliberate attempt to attack people with progressive politics or any kind. And painting a few loons who pushed a pro-trans identity, some of whom managed to infiltrate already progressive institutions as "the establishment" is ridiculous.

The backlash, as always, is far greater than the movement.

It doesn’t matter, it’s irrelevant, he’s held up as a figure of ridicule by the actual establishment just as corbyn is. If he were more establishment minded he would have just joined the conservatives.

I don’t think it’s money I think it’s ideological, lazy accusation by the way, people can grift and still believe they are fundamentally right. We see MP’s from all parties doing that. For example they want to have a system like the americans where you can just bring in new civil servents instead of inheriting them. That would be a significant institutional change. They probably want more control over the judiciary etc etc.

Yes - in the ideal world it should all be about ideas! My dream - and the search for truth. But for a long time some peoples ideas were excluded (poor people, gay people etc). Now other peoples ideas are excluded because they are pro-merit, white. It’s the same process - when some groups of people seize power, they close the drawbridge to the people that they disagree with.

He doesn’t mean ‘the establishment’, the definition that we grew up with (the royal family, BBC, Civil Service, private schools). He means a large subset of the population who have all become captured by virtue signalling, censorship, pro-immigration, DEI. Lots of the main institutions in our country have lots of these people in positions of power. He needs to find a new description. He is definitely not ‘establishment’ by his definition. Nor is Boris Johnson, Kemi, nearly everyone who works in the City. It is nothing to do with how much money you have or where you work, or were educated. He needs a better word.

I disagree. His socio-economic background place him firmly in Establishment territory. His anti-elite rhetoric is hypocrisy. He's a charlatan.

In this instance it does. Farage's upbringing, education and life experiences are establishment to the core. You don't see Reform running around looking to change the institutions that created the establishment do you. And they won't unless there's money in it for them.

Thats what I mean about identity, just because he is xy and z doesn’t make him establishment. Establishment would mean he’s part of our Institution but he’s not is he. I am extremely unlikely to ever cast a vote for reform but the idea that the colour of your skin or where your parents chose to educate you makes you establishment or anti-establishment is a bit silly isn’t it. I mean corbyn went to private school for a bit and is also a white man. Tbf I don’t consider him establishment either. Both want to disrupt the current establishment in different ways. Neither like the institutions or their direction.

Anti establishment isn’t just about political leaning it’s about wanting to radically change current institutions. That has little to do with your skin colour or schooling, it’s radicalism either way isn’t it.

I really do dislike this “white man in power” stuff and I’m a female ethnic minority. It’s feels so intellectually lazy. I imagine oeople would have said that Sunak was very establishment and he’s a brown man, what about Kemi Badenoch. We have to get past this idea that element of your identity that you have no control over somehow dictate whether you are establishment, unfairly possessing power. I think we should discuss ideas instead of looking at who’s saying it.

This remind me a bit of the red terror, the idea was that your class dictated your guilt rather than if you had actually anything wrong or not. You will always be guilty.

Thats what I mean about identity, just because he is xy and z doesn’t make him establishment. Establishment would mean he’s part of our Institution but he’s not is he. I am extremely unlikely to ever cast a vote for reform but the idea that the colour of your skin or where your parents chose to educate you makes you establishment or anti-establishment is a bit silly isn’t it. I mean corbyn went to private school for a bit and is also a white man. Tbf I don’t consider him establishment either. Both want to disrupt the current establishment in different ways. Neither like the institutions or their direction.

Anti establishment isn’t just about political leaning it’s about wanting to radically change current institutions. That has little to do with your skin colour or schooling, it’s radicalism either way isn’t it.

I really do dislike this “white man in power” stuff and I’m a female ethnic minority. It’s feels so intellectually lazy. I imagine oeople would have said that Sunak was very establishment and he’s a brown man, what about Kemi Badenoch. We have to get past this idea that element of your identity that you have no control over somehow dictate whether you are establishment, unfairly possessing power. I think we should discuss ideas instead of looking at who’s saying it.

This remind me a bit of the red terror, the idea was that your class dictated your guilt rather than if you had actually anything wrong or not. You will always be guilty.

Yes access to the establishment used to be via social class or social climbing (grammar schools, working hard). Now to access the establishment you have to have the correct views. The sociology has changed.